[3-Way Trade] Bruins acquire Dmitry Orlov, Garnet Hathaway, Andrei Svetlakov; Capitals acquire Craig Smith, 2023 1st-round pick, 2024 3rd-round pick, 2025 2nd-round pick; Wild acquire 2023 5th-round pick

[Provost]

11 hours ago, mll said:

It still counts at the draft.  The CBA talks of remaining term and it's only on 30 June that expiring contracts come off the books so the retained contract spot is still part of the ledger through the draft.  UFAs for example can't start talking to teams before free agency starts on 1 July.

 

From the CBA:

 

(A) For the remaining term of Traded Player's SPC, the Club from which the Player is Traded may agree to retain no more than fifty (50) percent of the Averaged Amount of such SPC's remaining term ("Retained Salary Transaction" and the particular SPC, a "Retained Salary SPC"). In each Retained Salary Transaction, the percentage allocation of the retained Averaged Amount cannot be altered from year to year.

 

In the MOU it outlines that more than 3 cannot be on the books for a league year where a portion of the salary/cap is actually retained.

 

If a trade happens at the draft, the incoming player won’t have salary retained this league year, so it won’t go above the threshold of three.  No salary cap/retained this year.

 

“A Club may have up to a maximum of three (3) SPCs on its Cap per League Year as to which a portion of the AA and Salary have been retained in a Player”

 

The last half of that is why they could trade for contracts that have future retention.
 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Provost

[IBatch]

22 minutes ago, Provost said:

I am not disagreeing that it could be smart in the end… really tough call to make though when in a playoff race.

 

I am literally the guy always saying GMs too often chase the illusion of being in a playoff race.  Two points with a game makes it a coin flip for your chances.

 

I don’t think we have ever seen it happen before where a GM punted on a year when they could easily be playoff bound for the same of some futures that are years away.

Was impressed too.   Maybe they have a trade in mind but i think they know their core is too old, and after 15 good-great seasons it's time to start thinking about the future.    Only team i can think of that didn't keep a solid group of guys going into free agency is Ottawa.   That was something of a fire sale and well it was also the right move, and EK was probably the fulcrum (well that and a laundry list of other things, failed Duchene trade, Ceci's party gone wrong, cab-gate, Hoffman etc etc etc..Stone and Zib are stars.   They had a lot to work with. 

[mll]

17 minutes ago, Provost said:

In the MOU it outlines that more than 3 cannot be on the books for a league year where a portion of the salary/cap is actually retained.

 

If a trade happens at the draft, the incoming player won’t have salary retained this league year, so it won’t go above the threshold of three.  No salary cap/retained this year.

 

“A Club may have up to a maximum of three (3) SPCs on its Cap per League Year as to which a portion of the AA and Salary have been retained in a Player”
 

The extract I posted comes from the updated CBA after the changes in the MOU have been integrated.  The CBA also defines the league year in the preamble as: 

"League Year" means the period from July 1 of one calendar year to and including June 30 of the following calendar year or such other one year period to which the NHL and the NHLPA may agree.

 

A trade with retention at the draft would be in the same year as at the TDL and only 3 spots are available.  Cap counting still applies in the off-season - different rules but there is still a salary cap.

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by mll

[lmm]

18 hours ago, Coconuts said:

So the team that wants to go all the way is getting help from Hathaway 

 

There's a living on a prayer joke in there somewhere but I'm lazy 

 

[lmm]

so is this the same trade that caused Schenn to sit out ?

I guess we'll know if Schenner slinks back into the line up next game

[Provost]

1 hour ago, mll said:

The extract I posted comes from the updated CBA after the changes in the MOU have been integrated.  The CBA also defines the league year in the preamble as: 

"League Year" means the period from July 1 of one calendar year to and including June 30 of the following calendar year or such other one year period to which the NHL and the NHLPA may agree.

 

A trade with retention at the draft would be in the same year as at the TDL and only 3 spots are available.  Cap counting still applies in the off-season - different rules but there is still a salary cap.

 

The cap is calculated using commitments for a league year.  The way you are trying to interpret it just isn’t right. 

 

With your interpretation,

 

-  you can’t trade for a player at the draft who would have put you over the cap the previous season.

-  you can’t trade for a player at the draft using cap room that expires on July 1st.

 

Neither of those things is true.

 

The new version of what was called the tagging rule is that it allows you to go over the cap in the offseason for players STILL signed for that coming year (commitments).  It is specifically from July 1st onwards.  It allows you to have some rooms to make trades or waive guys to become cap compliant once you make a 23 man roster.  

The cap accounting rule for the current year is the “in season” accounting”, and for the next year it used projected based on commitments for the following league year.  That EXCLUDES any expiring salary cap.

 

 “Projected Off-Season Cap Accounting” (as currently applied per Article 50.5(d)(i)(A)) for the period of the first day of the NHL Regular Season through and including June 30, provided, however, that during this period the calculations under Article 50.5(d)(i)(A) will be based on the Averaged Amounts relevant for the following League Year and may not exceed the Club’s current Upper Limit plus ten (10) percent. Any such Averaged Amounts that are attributable at a rate reflective of a Player’s time on NHL roster (e.g. Two-Way SPCs and Two-Way Qualifying Offers) will be based on the Player’s currently projected time on NHL roster for the current League Year 

 

You aren’t committed to an expiring player and a player you signed to play the next season at the same time.  Just like no cap in the playoffs, between the end of the playoffs and June 30th it is still the in season calculations used and not the offseason one you are referencing.  It just happens to be zeroes because the cap is calculated based on the days in the SEASON not the league year.  It is the same pro-rating you use for in season trades (xx number of days left in the 186 day season/186) x the AAV of that player.  

 

Any amount of contract dollars you have on the books the day after the regular season ends are multiplied by zero.  The remaining number of days in the season (0/186).  You can have $300 million in contracts on the books and the cap hit is still zero (assuming most of it expires on June 30th and isn’t committed to the next year) until July 1st when the offseason accounting takes effect…. Purposefully to exclude contracts that just expired.

 

The exact same reasoning applies to retained cap transactions.  You aren’t retaining any cap or salary on a player you trade for after the end of the regular season.  The language of the MOU is very clear on that and if any party argued in arbitration, that clearly indicates the intent of the parties.  It only refers to contracts that you actually retained salary and cap in a league year.  If you trade for a guy after the regular season (at the draft), you did not retain any cap or salary for that league year and instead you use the projected calculation I noted for the next year.

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Provost

[mll]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

The cap is calculated using commitments for a league year.  The way you are trying to interpret it just isn’t right. 

 

With your interpretation,

 

-  you can’t trade for a player at the draft who would have put you over the cap the previous season.

-  you can’t trade for a player at the draft using cap room that expires on July 1st.

 

Neither of those things is true.

 

The new version of what was called the tagging rule is that it allows you to go over the cap in the offseason for players STILL signed for that coming year (commitments).  It is specifically from July 1st onwards.  It allows you to have some rooms to make trades or waive guys to become cap compliant once you make a 23 man roster.  

The cap accounting rule for the current year is the “in season” accounting”, and for the next year it used projected based on commitments for the following league year.  That EXCLUDES any expiring salary cap.

 

 “Projected Off-Season Cap Accounting” (as currently applied per Article 50.5(d)(i)(A)) for the period of the first day of the NHL Regular Season through and including June 30, provided, however, that during this period the calculations under Article 50.5(d)(i)(A) will be based on the Averaged Amounts relevant for the following League Year and may not exceed the Club’s current Upper Limit plus ten (10) percent. Any such Averaged Amounts that are attributable at a rate reflective of a Player’s time on NHL roster (e.g. Two-Way SPCs and Two-Way Qualifying Offers) will be based on the Player’s currently projected time on NHL roster for the current League Year 

 

You aren’t committed to an expiring player and a player you signed to play the next season at the same time.  Just like no cap in the playoffs, between the end of the playoffs and June 30th it is still the in season calculations used and not the offseason one you are referencing.  It just happens to be zeroes because the cap is calculated based on the days in the SEASON not the league year.  It is the same pro-rating you use for in season trades (xx number of days left in the 186 day season/186) x the AAV of that player.  

 

Any amount of contract dollars you have on the books the day after the regular season ends are multiplied by zero.  The remaining number of days in the season (0/186).  You can have $300 million in contracts on the books and the cap hit is still zero (assuming most of it expires on June 30th and isn’t committed to the next year) until July 1st when the offseason accounting takes effect…. Purposefully to exclude contracts that just expired.

 

The exact same reasoning applies to retained cap transactions.  You aren’t retaining any cap or salary on a player you trade for after the end of the regular season.  The language of the MOU is very clear on that and if any party argued in arbitration, that clearly indicates the intent of the parties.  It only refers to contracts that you actually retained salary and cap in a league year.  If you trade for a guy after the regular season (at the draft), you did not retain any cap or salary for that league year and instead you use the projected calculation I noted for the next year.

 

 

Not really sure why they would clear the retention spots before the season is over though.  UFAs aren't released before the season is over either.  They are still linked to their teams even if they are going to be UFAs.  Why wouldn't it be the same for the retentions spots.  It says for the remaining term of the contract - that's 30 June, no?

 

CapFriendly even notes that the Wild only have 1 retention spot left till July and not once the regular season is over.

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by mll

[Kevin Biestra]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

I am not disagreeing that it could be smart in the end… really tough call to make though when in a playoff race.

 

I am literally the guy always saying GMs too often chase the illusion of being in a playoff race.  Two points with a game makes it a coin flip for your chances.

 

I don’t think we have ever seen it happen before where a GM punted on a year when they could easily be playoff bound for the same of some futures that are years away.

 

It was mainly due to having no money but the Oilers disassembled their own dynasty year after year and still managed to win Cups in 1988 and 1990 while in that process.  For 1988 they had got rid of Coffey, for 1990 no Gretzky, and then things were still going and looking pretty good when they divested themselves of all of Messier, Kurri, Fuhr, Anderson, Lowe etc. who were acquired by LA and/or the Rangers to try to win Cups with that Oilers core elsewhere.

 

Gretzky was traded for 1st rounders up to 5 years away.  Coffey for a very young Craig Simpson.  The rest mostly for decent players about 5 years younger.

 

The Oilers didn't suck until 1993 when they had basically traded everyone away while they were still good.  I think the only players they still had from the dynasty in 1993 were Craig MacTavish and Esa Tikkanen.

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Kevin Biestra

[Provost]

38 minutes ago, mll said:

Cap rules change in the off-season.  Every players is back on the NHL roster so evidently not every player is going to be taken at full cap hit.  Depends on the type of contract + how many days they were on the roster when on 2-way deals, etc.

 

Not really sure why they would clear the retention spots before the season is over though.  UFAs aren't released before the season is over either.  They are still linked to their teams even if they are going to be UFAs.  Why wouldn't it be the same for the retentions spots.  It says for the remaining term of the contract - that's 30 June, no?

 

CapFriendly even notes that the Wild only have 1 retention spot left till July and not once the regular season is over.

 

it isn’t clearing existing retention spots, it is any new ones done at the draft don’t get counted until after July 1st because you literally can’t retain cap or salary for them for a season that is done.
 

What you linked is different.  It would be retaining more cap/salary for THIS league year before the ones that expire come off the books July 1st.  The example we were talking about was if it limits retaining salary on a player for NEXT league year at the draft.  If you make a movie then by moving out a player you aren’t retaining salary or cap on the player (there isn’t any salary or cap left to retain).  You are projecting a commitment to retain cap for the next league year.

 

1.  The cap rules don’t change from the start of the regular season until July 1st the following year.  The same rules apply.  It is only between July 1st and the end of training camp that the cap rules change an d allow that 10% buffer.  

Some of this goes back to experience reading and understanding the rules of contract interpretation.

 

The language of the MOU is more specific language than what is in the CBA.  It was from the same negotiation.  Specific language always takes precedence over general language. 
 

The MOU clearly didn’t just say “can’t have more than three retained transactions on the books at the same time”. It added league year where you actually retain cap/salary.  If you don’t retain salary in a league year then clearly it doesn’t count.  Any moves between the end of the season and July 1st by definition of the salary and cap can’t retain for the current year.  Those rules that I posted above.

 

The other part is having to interpret intent of the parties.  The MOU didn’t just add the second half of that language for no reason and it is really clear.  Also, literally no other cap rules work the way you are suggesting.  You don’t get hit with cap in both league years for a player you trade for or away after the season is done.  All the calculations are based on projected commitments.  A player you trade for literally can’t be on your roster for any days of the season for cap purposes because the season is done.  A player you trade away doesn’t count cap wise for the next season because they are gone.

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

It was mainly due to having no money but the Oilers disassembled their own dynasty year after year and still managed to win Cups in 1988 and 1990 while in that process.  For 1988 they had got rid of Coffey, for 1990 no Gretzky, and then things were still going and looking pretty good when they divested themselves of all of Messier, Kurri, Fuhr, Anderson, Lowe etc. who were acquired by LA and/or the Rangers to try to win Cups with that Oilers core elsewhere.

 

Gretzky was traded for 1st rounders up to 5 years away.  Coffey for a very young Craig Simpson.  The rest mostly for decent players about 5 years younger.

 

The Oilers didn't suck until 1993 when they had basically traded everyone away while they were still good.  I think the only players they still had from the dynasty in 1993 were Craig MacTavish and Esa Tikkanen.

 

1989 EDM was so defeated, they pretty much let Gretzky beat them in the playoffs, just couldn't play him, still their teammate in their heads.   That was very deflating for the hockey universe, even more so for the Oilers.    They just couldn't play their former Captain hard.    

 

That early 90's Oilers team was supposed to have a quick turn around with all those picks.    Doug Weight ... Cujo eventually.   Just wasn't enough.   Have magazines from 1994-1995 that kept the mantra going "anytime now"...We aren't that happy with the Sedin team not getting a bunch of picks and prospects, the Oilers dynasty is probably the best example of an amazing team getting a ton of young players, picks and prospects ever - and  nothing came from it really.

 

Edit: I 100% agree with Gretzky, if they could have kept that team together it would have just got even better - and probably won 5-6 more cups.  The fact 8 or so ex Oilers beat us in 1994, a year later Coffey won his last Norris and a Hart trophy runner up playing for Detroit (and Lindros did have a boffo season)... Back in 1986 - 1987 it seemed like the Oilers would just be the greatest dynasty ever.    Just entering their primes. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by IBatch

[mll]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

it isn’t clearing existing retention spots, it is any new ones done at the draft don’t get counted until after July 1st because you literally can’t retain cap or salary for them for a season that is done.
 

What you linked is different.  It would be retaining more cap/salary for THIS league year before the ones that expire come off the books July 1st.  The example we were talking about was if it limits retaining salary on a player for NEXT league year at the draft.  If you make a movie then by moving out a player you aren’t retaining salary or cap on the player (there isn’t any salary or cap left to retain).  You are projecting a commitment to retain cap for the next league year.

 

1.  The cap rules don’t change from the start of the regular season until July 1st the following year.  The same rules apply.  It is only between July 1st and the end of training camp that the cap rules change an d allow that 10% buffer.  

Some of this goes back to experience reading and understanding the rules of contract interpretation.

 

The language of the MOU is more specific language than what is in the CBA.  It was from the same negotiation.  Specific language always takes precedence over general language. 
 

The MOU clearly didn’t just say “can’t have more than three retained transactions on the books at the same time”. It added league year where you actually retain cap/salary.  If you don’t retain salary in a league year then clearly it doesn’t count.  Any moves between the end of the season and July 1st by definition of the salary and cap can’t retain for the current year.  Those rules that I posted above.

 

The other part is having to interpret intent of the parties.  The MOU didn’t just add the second half of that language for no reason and it is really clear.  Also, literally no other cap rules work the way you are suggesting.  You don’t get hit with cap in both league years for a player you trade for or away after the season is done.  All the calculations are based on projected commitments.  A player you trade for literally can’t be on your roster for any days of the season for cap purposes because the season is done.  A player you trade away doesn’t count cap wise for the next season because they are gone.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it.  I understand the point that you are making and can see why it makes sense for it to work that way.  Without a concrete case yet just feels like it's still more a wait and see how the league really interprets it.  

[Provost]

9 minutes ago, mll said:

Thanks for taking the time to explain it.  I understand the point that you are making and can see why it makes sense for it to work that way.  Without a concrete case yet just feels like it's still more a wait and see how the league really interprets it.  

Yep, unless something goes to arbitration there is no 100% answer.  I have seen bulletproof cases go the opposite way any reason or historical precedent would suggest.

 

That would require one party making a complaint though.  I don’t see anyone really caring to make the argument.  Maybe this year we will see a team with more than 3 slots at the same time (2 expiring and 2 for the next season)…. More retained salary are happening right now.

[mll]

8 hours ago, Provost said:

Yep, unless something goes to arbitration there is no 100% answer.  I have seen bulletproof cases go the opposite way any reason or historical precedent would suggest.

 

That would require one party making a complaint though.  I don’t see anyone really caring to make the argument.  Maybe this year we will see a team with more than 3 slots at the same time (2 expiring and 2 for the next season)…. More retained salary are happening right now.

 

Still probably need to wait till there's an effective case but it sounds like the Wild are under the impression it's blocked till 30 June.  

 

Joe Smith of The Athletic talked to Guerin about his TDL plans and writes: "But it doesn’t sound like Guerin plans to be a broker again by the deadline. They’re only allowed to retain money on three trades, and they would rather save one for this deadline or the offseason in case they need it."

 

If they want to keep it for the off-season that would suggest that the retention spots are blocked till 30 June.  Players traded after the TDL are not allowed to play anymore so any trade past the TDL is for next season only.  

 

[-Vintage Canuck-]